Dagens ord

28 jan. 2016

"I wish I knew." [...] "No one has ever told me. I have to make guesses, based on what I see from people who act like they know what it is." [...]

"And what is your guess?" [...]

"Ty shrugged. "Humans have always -"

He was about to say deluded themselves bit didn't want to make a poor impression [...]

"- preferred to believe that there was a purpose to the universe. Until the moon blew up, they had theories. After Zero, the theories all seemed kind of stupid. Fairy tales for coddled children. No one thought about the big picture for a few thousand years. We were all scrambling to survive. Like ants when their nest has been destroyed. On those rare occasions when we thought about the big picture, it wasn't really that big - Red versus Blue or what have you. There was surprisingly little thinking about the Agent. Where it came from. Whether it was natural or artificial, or even divine." [...]

"Some people - some Red, some Blue, and some ambiguous folks [...] seem to think they know something."

"Do they?" [...]

"I have no idea," said Ty. "But from what I've seen, they're not stupid. Even if they are -"

He paused, groping for words. [...]

"It's a way - the Purpose is a way - of saying there's something bigger than this crap we've spent the last week of our lives dealing with."

"Red versus Blue crap?"

"Yes. And even though no one is sharing anything with me - yet - I like the feeling of that. People who claim they are motivated by the Purpose end up behaving differently - and generally better - than people who serve other masters."

"So it is like believing in God."

"Maybe yes. But without the theology, the scripture, the pig-headed certainty."

[The others] nodded and looked thoughtful. But also, or so it seemed to Ty, a little let down.

20 jan. 2016

Here again, it is necessary to note that none of the great historic visions has been either 100 percent unconstrained or 100 percent constrained. Difference of degree among unconstrained visions are often crucial as regards the significance of truth - and of force. In a very pure unconstrained vision, such as that of Godwin, reason is so powerful - "omnipotent" was his characterization - that neither deception nor force was justified in pursuing the public good. Thus, even though the wisest and most beneficent might be on a far higher plane than most people as of a given time, their ultimate ability to gain public assent was virtually inevitable. But where the unconstrained vision of human potential postulates more resistant frictions en route to realizing the goal, falsehood and force become not merely rights but duties, for the enormous benefits of an irreversible breakthrough go on for centuries, over which time the initial costs are to be amortized.

If one believes, like Lenin, that a level of popular consciousness spontaneously achievable is inherently insufficient to the task, the more far-seeing elites have an enormous historic role to play and must employ whatever means are necessary. Although both Godwin and Lenin rejected the naturally evolved systemic processes which are central to the constrained vision, the differences in degree in their assumptions about human knowledge and reason produce profound differences in kind as to the role of truth and force. Relations between believers in Lenin's version of Marxism and believers in democratic socialism have historically been very bitter. A small shift of assumptions can have profound effects on the vision - and on the action that follows from it.

16 jan. 2016

My previous post, The Bullerby Beef, was picked up over at Häggström hävdar (Thanks, Olle!) These are my initial thoughts. I look forward to an interesting discussion, here and there.

Raphael: School of Athens

First of all, I would like any readers of my previous blog post to know that I am acutely aware of the problems and dangers of moving towards a more authoritarian society. (It may not be obvious from that text.)

Nevertheless, my main motivations for advocating drastical restrictions to individual and corporate liberties, are (a) the unacceptable consequences for the environment and for human well-being * that will otherwise ensue; (b) the moral repugnance of laissez-faire and the injustices it engenders; and (c) the sheer needlessness of the uninhibited, pampered and childish behavior currently being encouraged in the West. We are letting ourselves be exploited by commercial brain-washing in what has become a self-enhancing loop.

To my mind, so called paternal libertarianism and ”nudging” - currently in vogue - is clearly insufficient. Laughable, even. It reminds me of Naomi Klein’s recent comment on the Paris climate agreement:

It’s like going: ‘I acknowledge that I will die of a heart attack if I don’t radically lower my blood pressure. I acknowledge that in order to do that I need to cut out alcohol, fatty foods and exercise everyday. I therefore will exercise once a week, eat four hamburgers instead of five and only binge drink twice a week and you have to call me a hero because I’ve never done this before and you have no idea how lazy I used to be.’

The road to Plato’s Republic is (often, but not always) paved with good intentions. Still, whether such a society (or something similar) could ever turn out to be palatable is a different matter. The answer depends on who you ask, and when. (See, e.g. Rebecca Goldstein’s book: Plato at the Googleplex.)

I often ask myself if I could live a good life in such a society; as a ruler, as a soldier, or as a craftsman. And, of course, if everyone else could - simultaneously - live good lives as well. And my tentative answer is: I think so. At least, I hope so. I, for one, would be just as happy with but a tiny fraction of the possibilities and luxuries I have access to today. Not because I am ascetic, but because, as it is, I am literally drowning in excess - along with many Westerners.

There is, of course, the inevitable problem of (1) knowing who knows best. There is also the practical problem that (2) power corrupts. And (3) what to do with those who will not play along. Contrary to popular opinion, I view the concern that (4) restricted liberties entail a diminished quality of life - subjectively or objectively - as a non-issue, for reasons given below.

When it comes to (1) I would say that we do have a pretty good answer. It’s not perfect, but let’s not make perfect the enemy of good. So who’s ”we”, and what is the answer? Bluntly: science and scientist. Yes, there are lots of complications, but comparing the current state of affairs to one in which science plays a more prominent role in politics, the path forward is clear enough. And yes, it is self-centered, exclusive and elitist. Well, let’s just get over ourselves and get on with it, shall we? (I highly recommend the writings of Danish philosopher Klemens Kappel et al, e.g., "The proper role of science in liberal democracy"; "Freedom of Expression, Diversity, and Truth” **)

As to (2) there are surely better alternatives than appointing a single autocrat to be commander-in-chief, and then sit idly by for decades as he or she grows increasingly heady on the power rush. (Well, this is how critics depict the only possible alternative to Western democracies, as implemented today.) Plato himself had some ideas. The founding fathers made an impressive attempt to build on the Roman lessons and strike a reasonable compromise, but in the end they opened up for a dog-eat-dog society governed by capitalist plutocrats assisted by manipulative sophists. During the last two centuries, too little constitutional and legislative progress has been made, in Europe as well as in the U.S. There are plenty of reasons for this, not least the rise of hyper-consumerism. But to declare the end of history is complacent - if not cynical or downright stupid.

Regarding (3) I would like to see something a little more ambitious (and strict) than resigning ourselves to letting the mavericks set the standards.

My dismissal of (4) concerns about diminished quality of life is based primarily on the phenomenon of shifting baselines ***. Basically, you don't miss what you don't know. Subjectively, you compare your situation to that of your peers. As long as the fundamentals are in place (roughly, the base of Maslow's pyramid), you're objectively OK. Your subjective well-being (the top) will sort itself. Given even a minimal set of opportunities, it will hit a ceiling-effect, beyond which further resources are wasted.

9 jan. 2016

Olle Häggström's exceptional new book Here Be Dragons is surely one of the most thrilling, rewarding - and frightening - reads out there. I've read it twice now, and I could easily read again. In fact, I probably should. (Were it not for the ever growing pile of other books on my table.) Here's Olle on the future of humanity:

Another, less dramatic and in a sense diametrically opposite, scenario in which humanity might prosper despite a small value of q * is what we may call the BullerbyScenario (after Astrid Lindgren's children's stories about the idyllic life in rural Sweden in the late 1940s). Here, humanity settles down into a peaceful and quiet steady state based on green energy, sustainable agriculture, and so on, and refrains from colonization of space and other radical technologies that might lead in that direction. I mention this possibility because it seems to an implicit and and unreflected assumption underlying much of current sustainability discourse, not because I consider it particularly plausible. In fact, given the Darwinian-style arguments discussed above, plus the paradigm of neverending growth that has come to reign both in the economy and in knowledge production (the scientific community), it seems very hard to imagine how such a steady state might come about, except possibly through the strict rule of a totalitarian government (which I tend to consider incompatible with human flourishing).

(p. 212)

The more dramatic - and realistic - scenario being a preemptive and aggressive colonization of the entire universe.

When I described that scenario to my eleven-year-old son, he pronounced, after some thought:

Are we then nothing more than cosmic cockroaches, devastating everything in our path, until there is nothing left in the universe? Is this the only possible fate for our civilization - indeed for every civilization?

(or something to that effect, in tween parlance; aided and abetted by yours truly).

My own reaction was something along these lines, and I told Olle as much at the time:

Yeah, about "totalitarianism"... Human culture, morals, perceptions are really quite malleable; more so than we usually imagine. Relatively delicate nudges can have large impacts in the long run - if they are applied consistently.

Personally, I find it hard to accept the notion that oppression (perceived or "objective") is necessary in order to "handle" human nature.

Furthermore, we had better be able to deal with some measure of limitation! And people do, all the time - no problem! It's just a question of what you're used to.

Think about parenting: Any perceived injustice that a child may experience is always relative to what it construes as "normal" by observing its environment. Consequently, as a parent one must arrange this environment carefully.

In the Bullerby village you grow up with a natural respect for the environment, for your peers, and for the council of elders. There are no alternatives; the village is surrounded by a forest where you have no chance of surviving on your own.

Our problem is that people no longer have any sense of the borders of their (global) village, or of their place in it.

Add to this the scientific and technological developments that could be used in service of the community, e.g., different ways of influencing people's morals - directly as well as indirectly.

As a case in point, the educational initiative Naturvetenskap+ (Science+) is my small contribution to a positive feedback-loop intended to buttress society against selfishness, short-sightedness and sheer stupidity. It's my way of pointing the way towards Bullerbyn, in effect interpreting the curriculum as a collectivist agenda for sustainability. (And I have reason to believe that the Swedish National Agency for Education approves.)

---

Dejected, I study Olle's list of existential risks. It seems we have no choice but to abandon Earth. If we can. The only questions are when and how. And "who's 'we'?".

Threats from civilization, human or alien: climate change, environmental degradation, atomic and biological war and terrorism, nano-bots and AI running amok. Things that could (will) kill us all within 100 - 1000 years. Somehow I have been able to live with that knowledge until now. Mainly because there is at least a theoretical possibility of avoiding them.

Threats from nature: pandemics, meteoroids, volcanoes, cosmic rays, and eventually the Sun. These are things that could (will) kill us all no later than 100 000 - 1 000 000 years from now (give or take) **. And there isn't much we can do about it. Except, possibly, try to escape into space.

So, sterile as it is, I may have to accept Neal Stephenson's space habitat scenario - or something much worse - as the only option available to us, if that.

The old Gaia-hugging me looks utterly pathetic. I have lost my existential footing. Oh, the lure of the neighborhood church. (Strictly off-limits, of course.)

The whole idea of "Darwinian-style arguments" to the effect that we, as a society, are incapable of preventing a lone madman (or two) from destroying us all seems hopelessly defeatist. If nothing else, it seems to imply that we are forced to accept that a society can never be stronger than its weakest link; that we are forever bound by the law of least resistance. Perversely, Hanson (and others, mainly economists) seems to revelin the prospect of actualizing Parfit's repugnant conclusion.

Actually, I see this as a violation of Hume's law. Just because something is (or seems to be) a certain way, we can't concede that it should be so, or that it is unavoidable. *** We cannot resign ourselves to letting our propensity for recklessness violate societal and existential borders. Or even worse, the propensity of just a few.

What about the precautionary principle? And what about the asymmetry between the (relatively) known and safe, and the unknown and unsafe?

---

One of the most interesting chapters in Olle's book deals with the following question:

What do we really want?

Or perhaps:

What do we want our future techno-selves to want?

Or rather:

What do we want our smarter-than-us

(and possibly also wiser-than-us)

AI to want?

It will take over soon, you know. The AI, that is.

Now, if we ask it to find out what we really want, we will be sorry - for several reasons:

we don't know

we don't want to know

we can't agree (not even with ourselves); and

what we want isn't really what we want anyway.

So what if we instead ask the AI to find out what we (objectively) should want...

if there even is such a thing

if we are able to formulate the question

if we are able to understand the answer

if we are able to verify it

if we are able to comply

...well, then we will also be sorry, for that is surely not what we want.

So what do we want? We want to strive for, but not attain, any and all of the goals that could plausibly appear as candidate answers above. The journey is the goal.

Maybe, then, not even I would be entirely content in a sustainable steady-state Bullerby village.

And what happens, pray tell, once Sandberg et al have colonized the entire universe at lightning-speed? 'Tis but a moment's work (geologically speaking).

I return to my motto: Responsibility trumps liberty. Specifically, we must get into the habit of restraining ourselves - and others. And to find satisfaction in doing so.

It is only in relation to boundaries that we may find meaning and harmony. This is a universally applicable principle of aesthetics. (Here is one example, relating to creativity and music.)

---

Speaking of facts and values...

Olle repeatedly calls attention to the all too common mistake of mixing the two. What about this:

If, for instance we take the (from the point of view of mainstream economics) extremely small discounting rate r = 0,1%, then we see from Table 10.1 that this corresponds to retaining 90% of value a hundred years from now, which may seem relatively reasonable. But look what happens 10,000 years from now: the fraction of value retained after such a time period is (1 - 0.001)10,000 ≈ 0.000045, meaning, in frank terms, that we do not care about the economy and welfare of our great-great-...-great-grandchildren 10,000 years hence.

(p. 235, my italics)

Is this a subtle shift from fact to value? (Maybe not in itself; see Olle's comment below.) Would an economist reply that, in fact, our grandchildren will be 1/0,000045 ≈ 22,000 times richer than we are? ****

---

Am I, and could perhaps also Häggström be, a Kantian rather than an axiological actualist? And would that be so bad, compared to the hyper-rationality of some twisted utilitarianism? Sentimentality might be good thing. And a bit of Gaia-hugging.

-------

(*) q is the conditional probability that a society - having sprung to life on a life-supporting planet and developed to the technological level of present-day humanity - goes on to develop into an intergalactic civilization.

(**) This makes me wonder why, later (in chapter 10), upwards of a billion years of continued existence as mere flesh-and-blood creatures on Earth alone is described as a "conservative estimate"...

...the point of this conservative estimate being that the future holds far more lives worth saving than all that have hitherto existed...

...which, according to classical calculations of expected value, leads to the conclusion that even ridiculously small increases in spending on the prevention of extinction now correspond to millions of lives (later on).

(***) "Just because something is, we shouldn't let it." The status-quo bias, or the is-ought problem of induction?

Of course, I agree completely that positing a positive g (and r) is reckless, especially over an extended time. Actually, it epitomizes our selfishness and short-sightedness, and maybe also our stupidity. But it could also be an almost unavoidable consequence of our psychological makeup: If we did manage to override it, that would mean the end of our journey.

8 jan. 2016

"Does the general public know how badly the first contact went wrong?" Ty asked.

"None of the identities of your Seven are public knowledge. Certainly no one has the faintest idea that Hua Noah had anything to do with it."

"So Red hasn't been trumpeting that."

"It wouldn't be to Red's advantage, as I see it," Arjun said. "Now that they are allied with the Diggers, they want to make the Diggers out to be sympathetic. Revealing that they killef Hu Noah and his nurse would hardly serve that end."

"So we are just being made out to be some sort of anonymous thug squad. The Diggers chased us off with help from Red. We abducted a hostage as we were running away."

Arjun looked him in the eye. "No intelligent person in Blue believes that, of course."

"But Blue hasn't put out a countervailing narative yet either."

"It isn't Blue's strong suit." Arjun sighed. "Never has been, right? We're technocrats. We make decisions like engineers. Which doesn't always line up with what people imagine they want."

"Are you speaking of Blue in general?" Ty asked. "Or Rio in particular?" Using the name of the Ivyn central habitat as synecdoche for its culture.

"Both. A blue mentality that places us at the top of the decision-making pyramid. There's a reason why the very few Aidans who have become prominent in Blue have been musicians, actors, artists."

"They're supplying something our culture lacks," Ty said.

"You were supposed to supply it," Arjun said. Meaning, as Ty understood, the Dinan race. "And you did, during the heroic age."

Ty could feel a not altogether cheerful smile on his face. "By actually doing things, you mean," he said, "as opposed to pretending to do them in made-up entertainment programs."

"You know what, though? It's all entertainment. Real or made up. It's stuff that people watch on screens or varps. Red gets that."

"Well," Ty said, "maybe we can continue the discussion in my bar if we get out of this. But the bottom line for now, if I'm hearing you right, is that, narrative-wise, Red is killing us."

4 jan. 2016

Square meter for square meter, this was the finest shopping district in the human universe, drawing its stock from every habitat visited by the Eye, attracting the sophisticated and well-heeled natives of the Great Chain as well as tourists from whichever habitats were currently in reach.

She was feeling a kind of vague ambient pressure - enhanced, no doubt, by the advertising that walled her in on all sides - to buy clothes, or try on jewelry, or get a hairstyle that would make her fit in better on Cradle. [...] Kath One had been much more susceptible to those kinds of social influences and would have been emptying her bank account at this moment, trying to silence the little voice in her head telling her she wasn't pretty or stylish enough. [...]

(p. 638-639)

[...] smartphones and tablets and laptops that had been manufactured on Old Earth [...] did not work anymore, but their technical capabilities were [...] impressive compared to what [...] modern people carried around in their pockets. This ran contrary to most people's intuitions, since in other areas the achievements of the modern world [...] were so vastly greater than what the people of Old Earth had ever accomplished. It boiled down to Amistics. [...]

Blue, for its part, had made a conscious decision not to repeat what was known as Tav's Mistake. [...]

Fair or not, Tavistock Prowse would forever be saddled with blame for having allowed his use of high-frequency social media tools to get the better of his higher faculties. [...]

Anyone who bothered to learn the history of the developed world in the years just before Zero understood perfectly well that Tavistock Prowse had been squarely in the middle of the normal range, as far as his social media habits and attention span had been concerned. But nevertheless, Blues called it Tav's Mistake. They didn't want to make it again. Any efforts made by modern consumer-goods manufacturers to produce the kinds of devices and apps that had disordered the brain of Tav were met with the same instinctive pushback as Victorian clergy might have directed against the inventor of a masturbation machine. [...]

The end result [...] was that she was dwelling in habitats, and being moved around by machines, far beyond the capabilities of Old Earth. She was being served and looked after by robots that were smarter and more robust than their ancestors [...] And yet the information storage capacity of her tablet, and its ability to connect, were still limited enough that it made sense for her to download books over a cable [...] and to make room for them in the tablet's storage chips by deleting things she had already read.

Stephenson is a self-professed "sociomediapath", but I can't help wonder why his concern for keeping the mind uncluttered - his own as well others' - doesn't extend to the "vague ambient pressure" of advertising, high-tech or not.

---

Stephenson is clearly a technocrat of some sort, exhibiting an unsentimental, if not callous, attitude towards many "Old Earth" features, including - it would seem - most things biological *. Perhaps he is being hyper-rational. Or perhaps he has all but given up, and is merely bracing himself.

More generally, Stephenson seems conflicted when it comes to politics. Sometimes he appears to advocate free enterprise, bordering on anarchy. Other times he implies the need for collective action, top-down control, and mass surveillance. Maybe pragmatic is the right word: In interviews published online he comes across as neutral and balanced, almost to a fault.

You cannot help but be amazed by the scope of Seveneves. It is truly epic. And the research behind it is as wide-ranging as the storyline. Stephenson deals with a host of current technological, sociological, and philosophical issues, in effect practicing a scenario-based, thought-provoking, and accessible form of futurism that complements the non-fiction.**

2 jan. 2016

It took me a while to figure out, and I felt pretty stupid at times. I browsed the comments for clues and found that:

The right answer is SPOILER ALERT *

I sensed this to be true as soon as I saw comments indicating as much...

even when those comments did not explain why...

and I immediately trusted the comments which did supply an explanation...

despite finding some of them cryptical and unhelpful at first.

When I finally understood them, I realized that I had been stumped by their wording...

and the fact that they fail to explicitly spell out one crucial detail.

But what truly amazes me is the amount of wrong answers and convoluted explanations that come after the correct ones - there are thousands of them!

---

* These are the comments that I found useful (but not completely satisfactory):July 16.Workings:Can't be May 19 or June 18, or Bernard would know.Can't, therefore, be May or June, or Albert wouldn't know that Bernard doesn't know.Albert's statement means that Bernard now knows it is either July or August.So it can't be July 14 or August 14, or else Bernard still wouldn't know the birthday, which means it's either July 16, August 15 or August 17.If Albert had been told August, then Bernard's statement wouldn't help him in figuring out Cheryl's birthday, which means he had to have been told July.Therefore it must be July 16th.July 16. When Albert says he knows for sure that Bernard doesn't not know the birthday, it immediately rules out May and June, as both contain dates which could instantly give away the answer (18th and 19th)Then, when Bernard says that Albert's statement has given him the answer, the date has to be 16th, as all other dates in July and August are repeated elsewhere in the list.Ergo July 16QED